PLEASE WRITE HERE YOUR NEW PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTIONS! Notice - I can't write very long and hard in our appl form, because there are characters limited (in some boxes 1800, in some 2500 characters).
Poland
Turkey
Iceland
Italy
Croatia
Portugal
Spain
Hungary
Somebody WILL EVALUATE OUR PROJECT under these issues ... Please be critical and look our project with 'evil eye' over!
Note on the points system: Each criterion should be rated on the scale proposed. The ratings of the quality criteria result in a total number of points out of a maximum of 100. Each application is rated by 2 assessors and the average of the marks will be used as the final marking for quality. Experts should use numbers with decimals (e.g. 4.2) when giving points for one or more of the items in the quality assessment form in order to avoid too many assessments with the same total number of points. National Agencies will need to define an approach on how to deal with significant differences between the points given by the two assessors or with situations in which only one of the two experts has assessed the application as weak under point D.3 b (e.g. consolidation between the two assessors to agree on a final marking or having the application assessed by a third expert).
Please note that applications scoring less than 50 points in the quality assessment will not be selected for funding. Points for newcomers and national priority points will be awarded separately by the NA and input directly into LLPLink.
Question inthe applicationform
Points
Max.
Breakdown
D.3.
a) The aims of the Partnership and the approach chosen toachieve them are clear and realistic.
12
Very Good (10-12)
Good (7-9)
Fair (4-6)
Weak (0-3)
b) The subject is relevant for the Comenius programme. (see Comenius objectives in Annex 1) Applications assessed as "weak" on this criterion will be rejected without further assessment.
4
Very Good (4)
Good (3)
Fair (2)
Weak (0-1)
D.4.
The results are relevant for the Partnership in question.
6
Very Good (6)
Good (4-5)
Fair (2-3)
Weak (0-1)
D.5. & D.6.
The expected impact and benefits of the Partnership on participating institutions and individual participants are clear and well defined.
7
Very Good (6-7)
Good (4-5)
Fair
(2-3)
Weak
(0-1)
F.1.
There is an appropriate balance between the roles and tasks of thedifferent participants in terms of their involvement in the activities to becarried out. There is an appropriate and clearly defined distribution of tasks across the Partnership. The contribution of each partner is clearly explained. The tasks are defined and distributed among the partners in such a way that the results can be achieved. The Partnership coordination is well assured by the coordinating institution.
10 8
Very Good (8-10)
Good (6-7)
Fair (4-5)
Weak (0-3)
F.2.
Appropriate measures have been planned to ensure effective communicationand cooperation between the participating institutions. Appropriate measures are foreseen to ensure communication and cooperation such as meetings, workshops, regular correspondence, newsletters and other forms of exchange of information.
7
Very Good (6-7)
Good (4-5)
Fair (2-3)
Weak (0-1)
F.3.
The application makes clear how pupils and/or relevant staff will be involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of activities.
If the Partnership is rather pupil oriented, the application makes clear the role thatpupils will play in the different stages of the Partnership (planning, implementation,evaluation). If the Partnerships focused on pedagogical or management issues, the applicationmakes clear how all relevant staff will be involved in the planning, implementationand evaluation of activities.
12
Very Good (10-12)
Good (7-9)
Fair (4-6)
Weak (0-3)
F.4.
The Partnership is integrated into the curriculum and / or ongoingactivities of the institutions involved. If the Partnership focuses on pupil involvement, the application makes clear how the Partnerships activities will be integrated into the curriculum of the participating pupils and what subjects of the curriculum will be concerned. In Partnerships dealing with pedagogical or management issues, the application makes clear how the project fits into the regular activities of the participating institutions.
12
Very Good (10-12)
Good (7-9)
Fair (4-6)
Weak (0-3)
F.5.
The Partnership has defined an approach to evaluate whether the aims and the expected impact of the Partnership will be achieved in the course of the project lifecycle.
The evaluation plan is well defined and covers aspects such as follow-up of progressmade and Partnership performance, satisfaction of participants and other target groups,attainment of objectives, measurement of impact.
5
Very Good (5)
Good (3-4)
Fair (2)
Weak (0-1)
F.6.
The planned dissemination and exploitation activities are well defined andensure optimal use of the results amongst the participating institutions. The dissemination activities are focused and well defined. The Partnership demonstrates the interest/potential to make use of the results, experiences and, where applicable, end products of the Partnership.
7
Very Good (6-7)
Good (4-5)
Fair (2-3)
Weak (0-1)
Other institutions will also benefit from the planned dissemination andexploitationactivities and, if possible, the results will also be spread to thewider community.
4
Very Good (4)
Good (3)
Fair (2)
Weak (0-1)
G.2.
The work programme covers the whole period of 2 years and is appropriate for achieving the objectives. The planned activities and mobilities are relevant for the Partnership in question.
Notice - I can't write very long and hard in our appl form, because there are characters limited (in some boxes 1800, in some 2500 characters).
Poland
Turkey
Iceland
Italy
Croatia
Portugal
Spain
Hungary
Somebody WILL EVALUATE OUR PROJECT under these issues ...
Please be critical and look our project with 'evil eye' over!
Note on the points system: Each criterion should be rated on the scale proposed. The ratings of the quality criteria result in a total number of
points out of a maximum of 100. Each application is rated by 2 assessors and the average of the marks will be used as the final marking for quality.
Experts should use numbers with decimals (e.g. 4.2) when giving points for one or more of the items in the quality assessment form in order to avoid
too many assessments with the same total number of points. National Agencies will need to define an approach on how to deal with significant
differences between the points given by the two assessors or with situations in which only one of the two experts has assessed the application as
weak under point D.3 b (e.g. consolidation between the two assessors to agree on a final marking or having the application assessed by a third expert).
Please note that applications scoring less than 50 points in the quality assessment will not be selected for funding. Points for newcomers and
national priority points will be awarded separately by the NA and input directly into LLPLink.
(10-12)
(7-9)
(4-6)
(0-3)
(see Comenius objectives in Annex 1)
Applications assessed as "weak" on this criterion will be rejected without further assessment.
(4)
(3)
(2)
(0-1)
(6)
(4-5)
(2-3)
(0-1)
institutions and individual participants are clear and well defined.
(6-7)
(4-5)
(2-3)
(0-1)
There is an appropriate and clearly defined distribution of tasks across the Partnership. The contribution of each partner is clearly explained.
The tasks are defined and distributed among the partners in such a way that the results can be achieved. The Partnership coordination is well assured by the coordinating institution.
8
(8-10)
(6-7)
(4-5)
(0-3)
Appropriate measures are foreseen to ensure communication and cooperation such as meetings, workshops, regular correspondence, newsletters and other forms of exchange of information.
(6-7)
(4-5)
(2-3)
(0-1)
involved in the planning, implementation and evaluation of activities.
If the Partnership is rather pupil oriented, the application makes clear the role thatpupils will play in the different stages of the Partnership (planning, implementation,evaluation).
If the Partnerships focused on pedagogical or management issues, the applicationmakes clear how all relevant staff will be involved in the planning, implementationand evaluation of activities.
(10-12)
(7-9)
(4-6)
(0-3)
If the Partnership focuses on pupil involvement, the application makes clear how the Partnerships activities will be integrated into the curriculum of the participating pupils and what subjects of the curriculum will be concerned.
In Partnerships dealing with pedagogical or management issues, the application makes clear how the project fits into the regular activities of the participating institutions.
(10-12)
(7-9)
(4-6)
(0-3)
the expected impact of the Partnership will be achieved in the course
of the project lifecycle.
The evaluation plan is well defined and covers aspects such as follow-up of progressmade and Partnership performance, satisfaction of participants and other target groups,attainment of objectives, measurement of impact.
(5)
(3-4)
(2)
(0-1)
The dissemination activities are focused and well defined. The Partnership demonstrates the interest/potential to make use of the results, experiences and, where applicable, end products of the Partnership.
(6-7)
(4-5)
(2-3)
(0-1)
(4)
(3)
(2)
(0-1)
achieving the objectives. The planned activities and mobilities are relevant for
the Partnership in question.
(11-14)
(7-10)
(4-6)
(0-3)